Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: none <hzcnjkx656@tormails.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: sender rewrining advice
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:25:57 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <uta80m$c43c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut75od$3k36i$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut7is6$oeb$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:25:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1cdb1ccadb9b156fd58938a242829da";
	logging-data="397420"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rDIjCk3ouzRNXPyRkw/8GIQ/t2SfUMif0pFgtI4MYRA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4Il2vuJl4ZPu5MZGCsGiXRlev+0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <ut7is6$oeb$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
Bytes: 4318


> 
> I do SRS on recipients that aren't in class w.  So the method I'm using 
> wouldn't work for you as things going from MX to LOCAL would be 
> re-written using the method that I'm using.  Though there is a chance 
> that LDAP routing might change this.
> 
>> - on the mx server I want to decide what messages are for local 
>> delivery and what go to external.
> 
> I'm going to assume that you have an email route (mailertable?) for 
> things going to LOCAL and a fall back smart host configuration going to 
> OUTGOING.

yes mailertable, but no fall back at all.


> How are you dealing with the routing to LOCAL today?  mailertable and / 
> or LDAP routing and / or something else?

mailertable, only a few entries in LDAP routing


>> Normally I have to first relay the message to a local host, where in 
>> the virtualuser table I have an entry to deliver to an email address.
>> I prefer to skip this. What could I use on the MX host? LDAPRoute?
> 
> Please elaborate on what you are doing today.

I am not really doing anything yet. I have some people on LOCAL using 
forwarding, which are starting to generate spf bounces.

But in the near future I would like to offer an email address that is 
forwarded, that I configure and not some users turning it off/on.
I tested a bit with ldap routing. I would be able to forward remotely 
via MailLocalAdress and MailRoutingAddress

test@gmail.com -> test@me.com received at MX -> test@guerrillamail.com

I think it would be nicer if I could skip processing on LOCAL.

There will be email addresses on this @me.com that are just delivered to 
regular mailboxes on LOCAL.


> 
>> - I prefer the messages to be routed via the 'OUTGOING' service
>> Because the MX are not specified in spf records. Assuming that such 
>> envolopes 'SRS0=HHH=TT=example.org=alice@example.com' are still being 
>> checked on spf.
> 
> I don't see any problem with sending all messages leaving your 
> environment via OUTGOING.  I'd have to look up to see which is the 
> better way to do that; fall back smart host or smart host or something 
> else.

I have limited experience with smart hosts. Only used in situations 
where all traffic is forwarded.


>> - on the 'OUTGOING' I only have dkim signing
>>
>> I guess best would be to first do some routing and then on the 
>> 'OUTGOING' do the sender rewriting. Anyone already doing something 
>> like this?
> 
> You could apply the same type of sender rewriting that I'm doing on your 
> OUTGOING host.  Assuming that there is exceedingly little that is 
> delivered locally while everything else is going off host.

I think I have fair amount of local deliveries also on OUTGOING. What is 
the problem with local delivery and SRS? I thought the SRS milters could 
be given something like ip ranges to determine what is local and not?


> Even if .forward type activity for root et al. on OUTGOING going back to 
> MX -> LOCAL shouldn't be a problem if it's rewritten via SRS.
> 

Yes that would be my 2nd point of attention. Handling these user 
forwards correctly. But I thought focussing on just forwarding at the MX 
would be easier for now.